Garry pulled Linux support from Rust so imho he can get fucked too :)
Edit: to clarify I mean after I and other people purchased it with Linux support.
So now he knows what it feels like when you purchase something and the seller changes terms on ya. Nice!
You’re welcome to have that opinion. My opinion is that this is a niche issue that doesn’t actually affect anyone’s ability to play the game because dual-booting an unregistered copy of Windows and using tools to remove the watermark isn’t difficult. It’s realistically not a problem unless you’re hyper privacy-sensitive, in which case there are cut-down versions of Windows out there that strip all of the gunk out.
But that's entirely irrelevant. It is literally impossible for any business in any scenario taking a feature away that a customer paid them for to be forgivable, and should unconditionally constitute fraud.
Umm… pirating windows is your recomended solution?
Look don’t get me wrong I could say it’s if anything more cost effective for simply the dev’s to say “OK anyone who has more than 1 hour of linux play time prior to this date qualifies for a refund”.
Of which, most likely is a handful of people so easy work.
Screw privacy sensitivity that’s a moot point. Installing windows isn’t a minor tweak to a computer .First of all the suggested method is technically breaking the law. Secondly you are talking minimum adding in a windows partition, so an extra 50 GB storage on top of the amount the game takes. Comprimizes to the boot loader on the system, in which there’s a high chance of messing up an existing install.
Cough p2w skins and items. Gary isn’t making his own engine I don’t know why he even brings it up, most of the programmers are probably unity devs. Though facepunch is probably the richest indie studio on the planet.
Everything will be damaged as “Line Go Up” becomes every industry’s mantra. Nothing will get better, expect worse and worse product quality on average.
Unity had made their plans clear. Whether they backtrack a bit now or not doesn’t matter. We know what direction they are heading: squeeze more money out of indie devs
That's correct. Even with this backtrack, it's a safe bet that they'll likely re-introduce this same policy with different wording once they believe their consumers have calmed down.
The controlling shares of Unity are held by a trifecta of private equity and venture capital organizations. That’s why this is happening. It’s a classical presentation of the (short-term) profit über alles enshitification cycle.
The insider transaction history for Unity Software Inc shows a clear trend: over the past year, there have been 49 insider sells and no insider buys. This could be a red flag for potential investors, as it suggests that those with the most intimate knowledge of the company's operations and prospects are choosing to sell their shares
Or it just means they see it as compensation and are selling for taxes and expenses, not because they are worried about the long term direction of the company.
Ehh, the top folks at Google were all selling their maximum-permitted amount every window they got for a decade and the stock held up.
You typically don’t need to buy shares as an insider, the company just prints more gambling slips – er, I’m sorry, non-transferrable stock options – and hands them out.
Yes, but it doesn’t rise to the level of “insider trading,” which means using internal-only information to make trading decisions. If they sell these stocks regularly, on a schedule, in the same quantity, it’s not insider trading.
And that’s exactly what they’re doing, you can see their trades, and they’re consistent for about the same amount. So they’re not trading because of changes going on internally, they’re trading based on a schedule, probably because they need cash flow for some reason. My guess is taxes for their stock compensation.
Except this licencing change removes sustainability from all licencing models except the ones that run subscription models or advertising.
Now they say they aren’t going to impose this crap over any not for profit or for profit that’s earning revenue under 200K. But I have serious doubts that certain scenarios are going to slip through the cracks.
What it is essentially a way to bleed any viral indie game studio dry of their capital, which could force them to declare bankruptcy and sell off their assets.
I wouldn’t be surprised if this was a way to build a unity game studio.
Game goes viral and reaches the threshold of 200K+ revenue
Every install and reinstall of the game gets charged, costs start to outweigh profits.
Money drains fast with no way to stop it.
Indie company declares bankruptcy due to cash flow issues
Unity demands payment for unpaid bills in assets - gets the ownership of game title as payment.
Unity opens game studio and continues to sell the game, while employing minimal Devs to maintain it.
Bam! they’ve a bunch of viral hits completely for free under their umbrella in a bunch of payments. And because they own the engine, they can make money hand over fist while stopping everyone else from doing the same.
That said I’m sure they have separate payment and licencing deals with big AAA companies. So really it’s only the indie companies that end up with a viral hit that get screwed.
So the other option is that they do not open a game studio and they’re merely just doing big techs dirty work and taking out their competition, while providing IP fire sales for big tech.
That said, once the company goes after a group for failure to pay this money, I wouldn’t be surprised if a legal fight ensued in order to declare the terms of service unenforceable and/or anti consumer and have them nullified or forcibly rewritten/reverted. If that happens I’m sure the EFF or other non profit software foundation will end up providing legal funding and or services. Heck it could end up being a class action.
That 6-step plan is very evil, I love it. Hopefully people will now understand that proprietary software always leads to abuse. Everyone should switch to Godot.
It reminds me of the absolute insane stuff arcade manufacturers would do to keep control over everything.
Capcom used to sell full blown arcade systems where the game’s ROM was actually volatile - in 2 years, it would vanish. You needed to pay them a monthly fee so that a technician would come up with a special device capable of rewriting the data periodically.
Just watched a video about FaZe Clan. Used to be a relatable gaming group mostly on Call of Duty during the early rise of online gaming content— some of the first to use capture cards to record gameplay and upload raw footage or cut compilations on YouTube. Far as I understand people liked them because they were relatable but as the money started flowing they became highly corporate and influencer-like, getting streamer houses and stuff like that, and so people started noting a disconnect and stopped caring. FaZe has been clawing to stay relevant for a years now so it’s kind of interesting to see where they’ll go from here.
Tbh the only reason I’ve got an ounce of care about FaZe is because their CSGO team is pretty cool. The “clan” itself is just this weird baggage that comes with the name.
Title is a bit click-baity, but the core message is the game has seen a boost in users since it's recent update that was just before the starfield launch.
I don’t think it’s surprising that a sci fi game with exploration elements from a major AAA studio renewed interest in a sci fi survival/exploration game from a smaller studio. If you want more of the exploration part of Starfield, No Man’s Sky is the natural option.
That’s a popular quip, but it’s just not true. If it were, Unity would lay off most of its staff and only do bug fixes. That way they’d save a ton on salary, and they probably wouldn’t lose any customers for a couple years until they fall far enough behind, so their quarterly financials would look great for about a year until they started losing customers.
This isn’t that. This is just a classic example of the leadership not understanding the business they’re in and trying to maximize profit. I think they overestimate the value of their product and what their customers are willing to pay for.
Certainly Godot is the safer bet (probably why they are surging so much more right now), but Unreal is nowhere near as bad as Threads. Unreal is open source, and the license specifically forbids Epic from making retroactive changes like Unity just did:
The Agreement Between You and Epic
a. Amendments
If we make changes to this Agreement, you are not required to accept the amended Agreement, and this Agreement will continue to govern your use of any Licensed Technology you already have access to.
Unreal is not open source, it’s source-available. Open source generally gives freedoms like redistribution, yet that is explicitly not allowed by Unreal. To get access to the source, you need to agree to a licensing agreement with them.
That said, source-available is a lot better than most proprietary software licenses.
What did I mention that’s not part of the open source definition? Btw, I’m using this one, and only mentioned redistribution, which is the first one:
The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
The next big part is able derivative works, which is also not allowed as part of the Unreal license AFAIK.
Source-available is just as bad as proprietary as it distracts from the freedom that open source/free software gives. It also undermines open source by confusion which you are trying to clear up right now. Don’t legitimize source-availability
That’s only true if you’re talking about the goals of open source/free software generally.
If we’re just talking about a game engine and releasing games, being able to modify the engine is absolutely critical when optimizing a large game. So having source available is absolutely a very practical thing when using proprietary software.
So it really depends on what you’re concerned about. Source available is just as good as open source in most cases if your goal is to build closed source software. If your goal is to build open source/free software, it’s awful.
I’m pretty sure you can always modify code for personal use, you just can’t always distribute those changes. In the case of a game engine, this would mean you could modify the engine code in development, but you could not release your game with those changes in.
Unreal allows modification and distribution, but only if you’re a licensed user and only for your combined work, but you cannot distribute your own fork of Unreal, aside from a patch set for other developers.
games
Aktywne
Magazyn ze zdalnego serwera może być niekompletny. Zobacz więcej na oryginalnej instancji.